SECOND  EDITION. 

TO  THE  SENATORS 

• 

OF  THE 

Senate  of  %  &hk  m  futo  Work: 

BEING  AN 

I          EXAMINATION  AND  EXPOSURE 

OF  THE 

• 

REPORT  OF  THE  SELECT  COMMITTEE  TO  WHOM  WAS 
REFERRED  THE  REPORT  OF  TRINITY 
CHURCH,  MADE  IN  1855, 

MADE 

IX  SENATE,.  JANUAEY  29th,  1857, 

AND 

iiKommtttei)  for  |urtkr  Inpirg. 

BY  A  MEMBER  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

NEW  YORK: 
JOHN  F.  TROW,  PRINTER,  377  &  379  BROADWAY, 

CORNER    OF    WHITE  STREET. 
1857. 

SECOND  EDITION.  * 


TO  THE  SENATORS 

OF  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK ; 

BEING 

An  Examination  and  Exposure  of  the  "  Report  of  the 
Select  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  Report 
of  Trinity  Church  made  in  1855,"  made  "in  Senate, 
January  29th,  1857,"  and  re-committed  for  further 
inquiry. 

BY  A 

MEMBER  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 
February  12,  1857. 


The  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  New  York,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  Report  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Churchy 
in  reply  to  the  Resolutions  of  the  Senate,  passed  April  IZth, 
1855,  have,  through  their  Chairman,  Hon.  Mark  Spencer,  Presi- 
dent pro  tern,  of  the  Senate,  presented  their  Keport,  with  volu- 
minous ex  parte  testimony.  That  Keport,  with  the  testimony, 
is  just  published  in  the  Senate  Document  No.  46,  dated  Jan. 
29th,  1857. 

The  evident  injustice  evinced  by  the  fact,  that  the  testi- 
mony was  partial  and  consequently  unfair,  both  to  Trinity 
Church  and  to  the  Commonwealth,  prompted  the  Honorable 
Members  of  the  Senate  of  New  York  to  recommit  the  Report 
of  the  Select  Committee  by  a  decisive  vote,  implying,  if  not 
censure,  disapprobation. 

*  The  -writer  has  had  no  opportunity  for  revising  the  proof  of  thejFirst 
Edition. 


No  cause  that  is  good  needs  the  crutches  of  ex  parte  state- 
ment and  false  premises  for  its  support.  And  the  recoil 
produced  by  the  explosion  of  the  offended  sense  of  decency 
and  honor  prevailing  in  the  minds  of  Senators,  must  serve 
to  counteract  and  subdue  the  prejudice  which  such  unfairness 
is  designed  to  inject  into  the  public  opinion. 

Notwithstanding  the  unfinished  condition  of  the  question, 
and  before  the  "  testimony  "  was  printed,  editors  of  the  Church 
and  Secular  newspapers  have  thought  proper  to  endorse  the 
statements,  arguments  and  conclusions  of  the  Report  of  the 
Select  Committee,  publishing  through  their  columns,  in  edi- 
torials of  less  or  greater  length,  animadversions  the  most  severe 
against  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church.  And  they  threaten 
to  manufacture  adverse  popular  sentiment  under  color  of  com- 
ment on  "  the  latter  portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee/' "  which,"  they  say,  "  is  much  the  more  important," 
because  "  it  touches  not  only  Trinity  Corporation,  but  the 
rights  of  all  the  Churchmen  in  the  City,  and  the  interests  of 
the  Church  throughout  the  whole  State."  * 

It  might  be  good  policy  in  Trinity  Church  to  wait  quietly 
until  all  has  been  said  that  can  be  said,  before  she  shall  attempt 
to  reply.  This  policy  would  be  merely  the  prudence  of  the 
farmer  who  "  hesitated  to  clear  the  paths  about  the  house 
until  it  had  stopped  snowing." 

Nevertheless,  since  the  "  latter  portion  of  the  Report  of 
the  Senate  Committee  "  is  confessedly  of  interest  to  "  all  the 
Churchmen  in  the  City,"  it  is  a  sufficient  apology  for  one 
of  them  to  claim  a  hearing  from  Honorable  Senators  and  the 
Public  and  the  Church,  while  he  too  examines  "  the  latter 
portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Senate's  Committee,"  together 
with  some  of  the  "  testimony "  published  in  Senate  Docu- 
ment No.  46,  now  lying  before  him. 

The  foremost  point  is  to  examine  the  historical  statements 
and  quotations  from  the  Royal  Charter  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Legislature,  which  the  Select  Committee  report  as  being  de- 
rived and  "condensed  from  information  embodied  in  the 
evidence." 


»  Church  Journal,  Feb.  4,  1867.    See  ib.  Feb.  11,  1857. 


3 


I.  The  Committee  begin  by  stating  that 

"  In  1697  the  site  of  the  Parish  Church  at  the  head  of 
Wall-street  was  given  by  the  English  Crown  for  "  the  use  and 
behalf  of  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and 
to  inhabit,  within  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in  communion 
of  our  said  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  estab- 
lished by  our  laws."  • 

But  it  is  noticeable  that  the  Committee  do  not  state  (what 
appears  in  the  "  evidence  "  before  them)  that  "  the  land  which 
forms  the  present  Churchyard  or  Burying  Ground  of  the 
Church,"f  formerly  known  as  a'  part  of  "  the  Queen's  garden,"  J 
was  also  given  in  the  Charter  from  the  English  Crown  "  for  a 
Cemetery  or  Churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church," 
"  to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  to  be  applied  therein  to  the  use  and  behalf  of  the  inhabi- 
tants from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  within  our 
said  City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  our  said  Protestant 
Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws,  and  to  no 
other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever,  any  statute  law,  custom  or 
usage  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." § 

This  "  condensing  "  of  the  "  evidence  "  is  quite  significant 
when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  a  portion  of  this  very  Grave- 
yard (now  filled  with  the  dust  of  "  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city  of  New  York  ")  is  coveted  and  contended  for  by  certain 
persons,  whom  Trinity  Church,  under  a  sense  of  her  pious 
duty  as  custodian  of  the  ashes  of  the  dead,  has  resisted,  with 
cost  of  money  and  against  offers  of  money.  The  controversy 
concerning  the  Graveyard  is  not  yet  settled  and  is  now  pend- 
ing. It  is  even  notorious,  through  current  newspaper 
publications.  The  Select  Committee  could  not  be  ignorant 
of  the  efforts  to  profane  the  "  dedicated "  ground,  nor  of 
the  fidelity  of  Trinity  Church  in  fulfilling  her  chartered 
obligations  to  maintain  the  sacredness  of  the  Graveyard. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  Charter  recites  that  "  the  Pa- 
rish Church  and  Churchyard  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church 
is  declared  to  be  for  ever  separated  and  dedicated  to  the  ser- 

*  Senate  Document  No.  46,  page  14. 
f  L.  Bradish's  Testimony,  Ans.  1st,  page  91.       %  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46. 
§  Charter,  1697,  page  7. 


4 


vice  of  God,  and  to  be  applied  thereunto  to  the  use  and  be- 
half of  the  inhabitants,  &c.,  and  to  no  other  tise  ;  the  Select 
Committee  think  proper  to  "  condense"  the  testimony  to  that 
degree  which  allows  them  only  to  state  that  u  the  Site  of  the 
Parish  Church"  at  the  head  of  Wall-street  was  so  given, 
separated  and  dedicated  to  a  sacred  use  for  ever. 

And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Select  Committee's 
"  Report"  has  been  separately  published  in  advance  of  the 
"  evidence,"  so  as  to  prejudice  public  opinion  by  dogmatic 
statement,  without  the  accompaniment  of  the  documents  by 
which  their  Report  might  be  verified. 

II.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  Report  of  the  Select 
Committee  professes  to  recite  the  history  of  the  Incorporation 
of  Trinity  Church,  in  the  following  words  and  with  the  fol- 
lowing punctuation  :* 

"  The  act  of  incorporation  in  the  same  year  made  the 
u  corporation  to  consist  of  the  rector,  ( together  with  all  the 
"  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our 
"  said  city  of  New  York,  and  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid 
u  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our 
"  laws  and  the  legal  title  of  the  corporation  was  therefore 
"  declared  to  be  :  6  The  rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said 
"  city  of  New  York  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
"  of  England,  as  now  established  by  our  laws/  " 

Such  is  the  entire  and  exact  Report  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee, purporting  to  be  condensed  from  "  information  embodied 
in  the  evidence,"  and  professing  to  set  forth  a  verbal  quotation 
from  the  Charter  of  1697.  It  professes,  likewise,  by  implica- 
tion, to  publish  all  that  the  said  Charter  contains  essential  to 
the  question  of  the  "  Incorporation." 

That  Charter  of  Trinity  Church  is  not  published  in  the 
Report  and  accompanying  documents  of  the  SelectjCommittee. 

And  it  grieves  the  writer  to  denounce  the  Committee's 
Report :  1st,  For  omitting  essential  provisions  of  the  Char- 
ter :  2d,  For  reasoning  from  fragmentary  quotations  from 
the  Charter  :  3d,  For  suppressing  a  word  in  that  clause  of 
the  Cliarter  which  the  Committee  professes  to  quote  verbally. 


*  Senate  Document  No.  46,  page  14. 


5 


Wliy  that  word  was  suppressed,  and  why  the  maimed  clause 
purporting  to  be  the  "  Act  of  Incorporation,"  which  partic- 
ularly describes  the  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church,  was  thus 
deliberately  published  in  its  garbled  condition  by  the  high 
authority  [of  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  New  York, 
shall  be  exposed  before  this  examination  shall  be  closed. 

The  reader  will  see,  by  simple  inspection  of  the  paragraph 
now  under  review,  that  the  idea  sought  to  be  conveyed  in  that 
Report,  is  this  :  that  "  all  the  inhabitants,  from  time  to  time 
inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  the  City  of  New  York,  and  in 
communion  with  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,"  were 
invested,  by  the  Charter  of  King  William  III.  in  1697,  with 
indefeasible  and  with  equal  rights,  as  Corporators  of  Trinity 
Church.  By  virtue,  simply,  of  being  inhabitants  of  the  City 
of  New  York  and  of  being  in  communion  with  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  (or,  as  now  in  communion  with  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York),  any  person,  thus 
qualified,  may,  under  the  said  Charter,  claim  a  right  to  vote 
and  to  be  voted  for,  in  all  Corporation"  elections.  This  is  the 
very  point  and  pivot  of  the  controversy  with  Trinity  Church. 

The  Select  Committee  affirm  that  "the  Charter  of  1697  » 
secures  the  rights  of  a  Corporator  of  Trinity  Church  to  every 
inhabitant  of  the  City  of  Neiv  York  for  all  time  to  come,  who 
is  also  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  England  (or  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York)  ;  whether  such  per- 
son be  or  be  not  a  member  of  the  parish  of  Trinity  Church  ; 
whether  or  not  he  be  ecclesiastically  subject  to  the  Hector  of 
Trinity  Church  ;  whether  or  not  he  belong  to  some  other 
parish  in  the  City  of  New  York,  and  have  no  parochial  relation- 
ship to  either  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  or  the  Rector  of 
any  other  Church.  The  qualifications  of  being  "  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  City  of  Neio  York,  and  in  communion  ivith  the 
Church  aforesaid,"  constitute  the  only  qualifications,  under 
the  Charter  of  1697,  to  make  a  man  a  Corporator  of  Trinity 
Church. 

This  is  the  assertion  of  the  Select  Committee  :  this  is  the 
"  evidence  "  of  many  of  those  whom  the  Committee  sum- 
moned to  testify  ;  this  is  the  claim  argued  for,  in  the  Report  ; 
this  is  the  right  which  (the  Committee  say)  the  Charter  of 


6 


1697  confers  ;  and  which  right  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of 
New  York,  passed  25  of  January,  1814,  takes  away  from  com- 
municants of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  residing  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  The  very  plea  for  revoking  the  Act  of 
1814  is  grounded  on  the  notion  that  the  said  Act  "  excludes  "* 
from  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  "  the  great  body  of 
Episcopalians  of  the  City  of  New  York,"  "  deprives  "f  them 
"of  important  franchises"  ;  "  divests%them  of  their  rights  in 
valuable  estates  granted  and  confirmed  to  them  by  legal  and 
valid  acts,"  and  therefore^  that  the  said  of  Act  of  1814  is  un- 
constitutional, unequal  and  unjust. 

Surely,  then,  every  honest  mind  must  expect  that  the 
Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  would  quote,  correctly,  that 
clause  of  the  Charter  of  1697,  which,  it  is  claimed,  confers 
those  "  rights  "  and  "  franchises,"  from  the  use  and  enjoyment 
of  which  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  City  of  New 
York  are  said  to  be  M  excluded,"  and  of  which  they  are 
"  deprived"  and  "  divested  !"  And  moreover,  every  candid 
mind  must  demand  that  the  Select  Committee  fairly  and 
truly,  should  recite  any  other  clause  or  clauses  in  the  Charter 
of  1697,  which  expressly  limit  the  general  and  comprehensive 
franchise  of  "  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  "  (if 
such  clause  or  clauses  there  be).  And  the  ingenuous  citizen 
would,  furthermore,  require  of  his  representatives  in  the  Hon- 
orable Senate  of  the  State,  to  recite  any  provisions  in  the 
Charter  of  1697,  which,  by  just  inference,  would  limit,  or  in 
any  way  define  and  interpret  the  questionable  claim  to  the 
estates  of  Trinity  Church,  so  long  administered  by  that  Cor- 
poration under  the  sanction  of  the  charter  of  the  crown  of 
England,  confirmed  to  that  Corporation  by  Acts  of  the  Colonial 
Legislature,  enforced  by  the  laws  of  the  State  and  settled  by 
the  decisions  of  Courts  of  Judicature.  All  this,  one  might 
anticipate,  in  view  of  the  immense  evil  which  a  disturbance  of 
a  Christian  and  eleemosynary  Foundation  will  cause  to  the 
peace  of  the  community  and  the  harmony  of  the  Church. 

But  the  Select  Committee  content  themselves  with  a 

*  L.  Bradish's  Evidence.  See  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  95. 
f  lb.  p.  96.  %  lb.  p.  96.  §  lb.  p.  90. 


7 


recital  of  a  fragment  of  only  one  clause  in  the  Charter  of 1G97, 
that  recital  being  inaccurate,  through  the  suppression  of  a 
word,  more  or  less  important  to  the  controversy.  The  writer, 
therefore,  proceeds  to  supply  what  is  wanting,  by  quoting,  in 
the  first  place,  the  clauses  of  the  Charter,  omitted  in  the 
Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  which  clauses  bear  upon,  the 
questions,  "  Who  are  the  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ?"  and 
"  How  are  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  constituted  ?"  under 
the  Charter  of  1697. 

(1.)  The  Eector  is  the  foremost  and  first  named  Corporator, 
under  the  Charter.  "  There  shall  be  a  Rector  to  have  care  of 
"  the  souls  of  the  inhabitants  of  said  parish,  and  a  perpetual 
succession  of  Rectors  there/' 

"  And  we  further  declare  that  the  said  Rector  of  the 
"  parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  communion  of  our  Protestant 
"  Church  of  England  within  our  City  of  New  York,  shall  and 
u  may  for  ever  hereafter  have  a  common  seal." 

"And  we  are  graciously  pleased  to  constitute  the  Lord 
"  Bishop  of  London  the  first  Rector  of  said  parish.  And  our 
"  Royal  will  and  pleasure  is  that  he,  the  said  Lord  Bishop  of 
"  London  and  his  successors,  and  all  such  of  our  loving  subjects 
"  as  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  into  the  commu- 
"  nion  of  the  aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now 
"  established  by  our  laws,  shall  be  from  time  to  time  and  for 
"  ever  hereafter  a  body  corporate  and  politique,  in  fact  and 
u  name,  by  the  name  of  the  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said 
"  City  of  New  York  in  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church 
"  of  England  as  now  established  by  our  laws.  And  that  by 
"  the  same  name,  they  and  their  successors  shall  and  may 
"have  perpetual  succession,  &c." 

"  And  that  the  said  Rector  shall  have  the  care  of  the  souls 
"  of  the  inhabitants  within  the  said  parish  and  in  the  comniu- 
"  nion  of  the  said  Protestant  Church  of  England." 

"  And  our  Royal  will  and  pleasure  is,  further,  that  the 
"  patronage,  advowson,  donation,  or  presentation  of  and  to  the 
"  said  Rector  and  parish,  after  the  decease  of  the  said  first 
"  Rector,  or  the  next  avoidance  thereof,  shall  appertain  and 
"belong  to  and  be  hereby  vested  in  the  Church  Wardens  and 
"  Vestrymen." 


8 


"  And  that  all  the  succeeding  Hectors  of  said  Parish  and 
"  Parish  Church  (except  the  first  Rector  thereof  hereby  consti- 
"  tuted)  shall  be  presented,  collated,  instituted  and  inducted 
"  as  other  Rectors,  Persons  and  Vicars,  respectively,  are  accus- 
tomed to  be." 

"And  we  do  give,  grant,  ratify  and  confirm  unto  the  said 
"  Rector  and  inhabitants  of  our  said  City  of  New  York,  in 
11  communion  of  our  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  now 
"  established  by  our  laws,  that  the  said  Church  and  Cemetery 
"  or  Churchyard,  situate,  lying  and  being  within  our  said  City 
"  of  New  York  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  the  sole  and  only  Parish 
*  Church  and  Churchyard  of  our  said  City  of  New  York/' 

From  these  various  citations  from  the  Charter  of  1697,  it 
is  plain  that  the  Rector  is  the  Chief  Corporator,  and  so  im- 
portant to  the  integrity  of  the  Corporation  that  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  London  was  constituted  Rector  of  Trinity  Church 
by  the  Charter,  before  any  other  persons  and  as  the  head  of 
the  Parish,  without  whom  there  could  be  no  "  Parish." 

And  yet  the  reader  will  notice  in  the  paragraph  of  the  Se- 
lect Committee's  Report  that  the  words,  "  the  Rector,"  are 
printed  in  small  type,  without  any  marks  of  quotation,  as  if 
he  were  not  an  essential  officer  of  the  Corporation,  but  only  an 
appendage,  annexed  to  "  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to 
time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  our  said  City  of  New  York." 

And  the  inference  which  the  Select  Committee  would  have 
the  reader  to  draw  from  their  singular  mode  of  stating  and  of 
printing  the  question,  is,  that  "  the  legal  title  of  the  Corpo- 
ration was  therefore  declared  to  be  :  "  The  Rector  and  inhabi- 
tants of  our  said  city  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  our 
aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England,"  conveying  thereby 
the  idea  that  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  was  to  be  defined, 
as  coextensive  with  "  the  inhabitants  of  New  York  and  in  com- 
munion of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  ;  "  without  any 
necessary  parochial  connection  with  and  acknowledgment  of 
the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church.  But  the  reverse  of  the  Com- 
mittee's construction  appears  in  the  Charter.  For,  in  the 
Charter,  the  Rector  is  constituted  first  and  foremost,  and  the 
other  Corporators  are  described  as  "  inhabitants  of  the  Pa- 
rish  ;"  or  as  those  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  in 


communion  with  the  Protestant  Church  of  England  who  were 
under  the  parochial  jurisdiction  of  the  Hector  of  Trinity 
Church." 

By  making  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  the  sole  and 
only  Parish  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the  Charter  of  1G97 
constitutes  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  the  sole  and  only 
Rector  of  New  York.  And  in  such  case,  agreeably  to  the 
laws  and  usages  in  Great  Britain  (except  in  special  cases, 
made  and  provided  for  especially),  the  geographical  limits  of 
the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  would  embrace  the  geographical 
limits  of  the  city  and  be  coincident  with  them. 

But  it  is  highly  important  to  observe  that  the  citizens  of 
New  York  did  not,  by  the  Charter  of  1697,  derive  their  in- 
terest in  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  by  virtue  of  their 
"  being  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  in  communion  with  the 
Church  of  England/'  but  by  virtue  of  their  being  under  the 
jurisdiction  ecclesiastical  of  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
inhabitants  of  the  Parish,  and  in  communion  with  the  Church 
of  England. 

This  essential  relationship  with  the  Rector  was  established 
by  the  Charter  of  1697,,  even  when  the  Parish  and  the  City 
were  coextensive,  and  while  Trinity  was  the  only  Parish 
Church  in  New  York.  Much  more,  is  this  personal  relation- 
ship with  the  Rector,  the  mark  and  sign  of  a  Corporator, 
when  the  city  of  TSew  York  is  composed  of  many  Parishes. 
For,  if  the  Rectors  and  members  of  other  Parishes  may  inter- 
fere in  the  parochial  concerns  of  Trinity  Church,  while  the 
Rector  and  members  of  Trinity  Church  may  not  intrude  like- 
wise into  the  concerns  of  those  other  Parishes,  there  would  be  an 
inequality  of  prerogative  injurious  to  the  Rector  and  members 
of  Trinity  Church,  while  giving  supremacy  to  the  Rectors  and 
members  of  all  other  Parishes  ;  enabling  them  by  their  greater 
numbers  to  override  and  rule  the  Corporation  of  Trinity 
Church.  Or  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Rectors  and  members 
of  Parishes  may,  mutually,  invade  the  Parishes  to  manage  the 
affairs  of  one  another,  then  all  order  will  cease  and  confusion 
will  abound  ;  while  the  distinction  of  separate  Parishes  would 
be  at  once  ridiculous,  then  obliterated  and  brought  to 
nought.     Besides,  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  for  "incor- 


10 


porating  religious  societies,"  which  confines  electors  to  their 
several  Parishes,  would  therehy  be  evaded,  frustrated,  and 
made  void. 

Nor,  in  either  hypothesis,  would  the  evil  stop  here.  But 
Trinity  Church  would  not  only  be  prevented  from  choosing 
her  own  candidates  to  be  the  managers  of  her  estate,  but  she 
would  be  deprived  of  sending  her  deputies  to  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese,  and  thus  be  utterly  silenced  in  the  Councils 
of  the  Church,  while  other  Parishes  would  possess  the  double 
vote  of  the  Trinity  deputation  and  their  own  besides. 

In  short,  to  deny  to  Trinity  Church  the  separate  and  in- 
dependent management  of  her  Corporate  concerns  by  admit- 
ting the  community  of  new  Corporations  to  a  voice  in  her 
afTairs,  is  simply  to  extinguish  Trinity  Parish,  to  blot  out  her 
existence  by  a  matricide,  as  full  of  folly  as  of  wickedness.  The 
same  rule,  therefore,  still  holds  true,  now  as  formerly,  that  the 
inhabitants  of  New  York,  who,  by  the  Charter  of  1697,  are 
described  as  members  of  the  Corporation,  are  those  "  inhab- 
itants over  whom  the  Rector  of  Trinity  Church  has  the  care 
of  souls,  who  are  Ecclesiastically  under  the  parochial  juris- 
diction  of  the  Hector  of  Trinity  Church,  and  luho  are  com- 
municants "  inhabiting  the  Parish"  of  Trinity  Church. 

But  this  view  of  the  relationship  of  the  Corporators,  inhab- 
itants of  the  city  of  New  York,  with  the  Eector  and  Parish 
of  Trinity  Church,  is  studiously,  and  it  may  be  said,  artfully, 
concealed  in  the  printed  Keport  of  the  Select  Committee. 

(2.)  The  second  point  to  be  noticed  is,  the  manner  in  which, 
and  persons  by  whom,  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church  are  to  be  chosen,  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Charter  of  1697. 

The  Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  as  well  as  the  "  evi- 
dence "  of  some  of  the  persons  testifying  before  the  Committee, 
would  fain  persuade  the  reader,  that  "all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  in  communion  of  the  Church,  may,  as  Cor- 
porators, vote  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  and  also,  that  such  inhabitants  are  themselves  eligible 
to  be  chosen  as  managers  of  the  estate,  and  may  serve,  if 
chosen,  in  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church."    And  this  result 


0 


11 


is  precisely  what  seems  to  be  the  object  of  the  adversaries  of 
Trinity  Church  to  procure. 

But  the  "  Charter  m  declares  and  prescribes  that  "  there 
"  shall  be  annually  and  once  in  every  year  for  ever,  on  the 
"  Tuesday  in  Easter-week,  two  Church  Wardens  and  twenty 
"  Vestrymen,  duly  elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  the  in- 
"  habitants  of  the  Parish,  in  communion  as  aforesaid." 

And  in  case  of  a  vacancy,  the  "  Charter  "  requires  that 
"  the  Vestry  or  any  eleven  or  more  of  them,  shall  and  may 
"  elect  a  fit  person,  inhabitant  and  householder  in  the  said 
"  Parish,  to  supply  the  same." 

And  the  better  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  Parish,"  as  employed  at  the  date  of  the  Charter,  and  as  still 
in  use  and  signification  in  the  Ecclesiastical  polity  in  England 
and  in  this  country,  the  authorities  define  a  "  Parish  "  to  be 
"  the  charge  of  a  particular  Hector  or  Priest!'  No  Act  of 
Parliament  has  ever  defined  the  boundaries  of  Parishes,  but 
they  have  "  been  established  as  the  circumstances  of  times, 
places,  or  persons  happened  to  make  them  greater  or  lesser."* 

And  so  careful  is  the  "  Charter  "  to  maintain  the  inde- 
pendence of  "  the  Parish,"  that  it  furthermore  ordains  "that 
"  the  Church  Wardens,  for  the  time  being,  shall  not,  at  any 
w  time,  dispose  of  any  of  the  pews  or  places  in  pews  in  the 
"  said  Trinity  Church,  to  any  person,  not  an  inhabitant  of  the 
"  said  Parish." 

The  Charter  is  thus  wisely  solicitous  to  preserve  the  immu- 
nities of  the  Parish  from  outside  intrusion,  and  to  protect  the 
parishioners  against  any  invasion  upon  their  exclusive  rights 
as  Corporators.  And  the  Select  Committee  would  have  had 
no  grounds  for  their  preposterous  assertions,  if  they  had  not 
omitted  whole  clauses  touching  the  questions  "  who  are  the 
Corporators  of  Trinity  Church  ?  "  and  "  how  are  Corporators 
constituted,  under  the  Charter  of  1697  ?  "  To  this  point — tJie 
Succession  of  Corporators — we  now  ask  the  reader's  attention. 

(3.)  The  Select  Committee  affirm— that  the  Charter  of  1697 
"  made  the  Corporation  to  consist  of  the  rector,  together  with 
all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting,  and  to  in- 
habit our  said  city  of  New  York,  and  in  communion  of  our 
aforesaid  Protestant  Church  of  England."  The  Committee 
have  presented  this  clause  of  the  Charter  as  containing  the 
whole  ansiuer  to  the  question  of  the  Successors.  They  convey 
the  idea  to  the  reader,  that  the  Charter  is  silent,  except  in  this 

*  Burns'  Ec.  Law,  133  ;  Jacob's  Law  Diet,  Title  Parish;  Hook's  Church 
Dictionary;  Stanton's  do.  Title  Parish. 


12 


one  clause,  touching  "  who  are  the  Corporators  and  how  are 
they  constituted.'*'  And  the  Committee's  Report  corresponds 
with  the  arguments,  or  (as  they  style  them)  "  the  evidence7' 
of  some  of  the  persons  testifying.  Accordingly,  they  would 
have  us  believe  that  "  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  communion,7'  &c,  possess,  under  the  Charter,  a  vested 
right  as  Corporators  ;  that  they  need  not  have  any  title  but 
this  supposed  vested  right.  The  right  founded  on  election,  or 
the  admission  through  form  of  election,  is  wholly  ignored  by  the 
Select  Committee,  as  though  the  Charter  contained  no  such 
antecedent  election,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  a  claim  to  be 
a  Corporator  of  Trinity  Church.  The  writer,  therefore,  sup- 
plies the  omission,  by  quoting  the  Charter  as  follows  :  "  And 
"We  do  of  our  like  speciall  grace,  certaine  Knowledge,  and  meer 
"  motion,  give  and  grant  unto  the  said  Rector  and  inhabitants 
"  of  our  city  of  New  Yorke  in  communion,  &c,  full  power  and 
"'authority  from  time  to  time  to  appoint,  alter,  and  change 
"  such  days  and  times  of  meeting  as  they  shall  think  fitt,  and 
"to  choose,  nominate  and  appoint  so  many  others  of  ourLeige 
"  people  as  they  shall  think  fitt,  and  shall  be  willing  to  accept 
"  the  same  to  be  members  of  the  said  church  and  corporation 
"  and  body  Politicque  and  them  into  the  same  to  admit t  and  to 
"  elect  and  constitute  such  other  officer  and  officers  as  they 
"  shall  think  fitt  and  requisite  for  the  orderly  manageing  and 
"dispatching  of  the  affairs  of  the  said  Church  and  corporation 
"  and  their  Successors,  and  from  time  to  time  to  make,  ordaine 
"  and  constitute  or  repcale  such  rules,  orders  and  ordinances  for 
"  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  members  of  the  said  church  and 
"  corporation,  so  that  those  rules,  orders,  and  ordinances  be  not 
"  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  our  Real  me  of  England  and  of  this 
"  our  province/7 

Did  the  Select  Committee  not  observe  this  provision  of  the 
Charter  of  1697,  for  the  election  and  admission  of  members 
of  the  Corporation  ?  Did  the  witnesses,  in  their  "  evidence,77 
not  see  these  pregnant  words  ?  Was  the  withholding  of  this 
clause  an  accident  ?  In  the  argument  or  "  evidence77  of  the 
witnesses  why  was  this  clause  ignored  ? 

We  answer  boldly,  because  this  part  of  the  Charter  utterly 
dissipates  the  claim  of  a  vested  right  to  be  a  Corporator. 
Because  it  confutes  the  argument  that  the  Law  of  1814 
"  divests 77  the  inhabitants  of  New  York  of  any  right  under 
the  Charter  of  1697.  Because  the  prerogative  to  "admit,77 
implies  the  prerogative  to  refuse  admission.  Because  none 
other  but  those  persons  inhabiting  New  York,  and  in  coiniriu- 


13 


nion,  &c.,  at  the  date  of  the  Charter,  in  1G97,  were  "vested'' 
by  the  Charter  with  the  rights  of  Corporators  in  Trinity  Church. 
Because,  finally,  all  fresh  Corporators  must  (in  addition  to  the 
qualifications  of  being  citizens  and  communicants)  be  "  ad- 
mitted "  by  a  vote  of  the  Corporation. 

What  shall  the  candid,  honest,  and  true-hearted  citizen 
say  in  sufficient  condemnation  of  this  unworthy  attempt  to 
hoodwink  the  community,  and  to  deceive  the  members  of  the 
Church  in  the  City  of  New  York  in  1857,  with  the  fancy  that 
the  Charter  of  1697  "invests"  them  with  franchises,  rights, 
privileges,  &c.f  which  the  Law  of  1814  "  deprives  them  of," 
"  divests  them  of/'  "  excludes  them  from,"  denies  them  ;  and 
which  Trinity  Church  is  monopolizing  without  law  and  against 
law  ! 

(4.)  But  this  is  not  all.  The  writer  proceeds  to  show  a  fault 
in  the  Report,  worse  than  mere  omission  of  important  provi- 
sions in  the  Charter,  bearing  directly  on  the  question  in  hand. 
The  Select  Committee  have  suppressed  a  word  in  their  pro- 
fessed quotation  from  the  Charter  !  It  is  a  little  word.  It 
is  only  a  preposition.  But  small  as  it  is,  that  word  is  in  the 
Charter,  and  not  recited  in  the  Report  which  pretends  to  quote 
from  the  Charter.  And  it  is  a  word  quite  useful,  and  even 
necessary  for  the  just  interpretation  of  the  Charter  itself,  where 
it  describes  the  qualifications  of  the  Corporators  of  Trinity 
Church.  The  Charter  says,  "  Rectors  of  the  said  Parish,  to- 
"  gether  with  all  the  inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting, 
"  and  to  inhabit."  At  this  point  the  question  arises,  What 
inhabitants  are  meant  ?  or,  in  other  words,  1  inhabitants '  of 
what  domicil  ?  And  the  answer  is  "  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Parish,"  just  spoken  of.  The  sense  is  quite  clear  in  this  con- 
nection, to  wit,  "  Rectors  of  said  Parish,  together  with  all  the 
inhabitants  from  time  to  time  inhabiting  and  to  inhabit  "  said 
Parish. 

Then  follow  two  further  qualifications  of  the  Lay  Corpora- 
tors, to  wit :  They  must  be,  1st,  "  in  our  said  City  of  New 
York,"  and  2d,  "  in  communion  of  our  aforesaid  Protestant 
Church  of  England." 

The  threefold  qualification  of  Lay  Corporators,  accordingly, 
is  prescribed  in  the  Charter  to  be,  persons  inhabiting  the  Pa- 


14 


rish,  in  New  York,  and  in  communion  with  the  Church  of 
England. 

But  this  interpretation  of  the  Charter,  so  consonant  with 
other  provisions,  and  so  definite  in  its  description  of  the  Cor- 
porators, is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  pretended  claims  of  per- 
sons outside  of  the  Parish,  It  is  subversive  of  the  arguments 
or  "  evidence  "  of  many  of  the  witnesses  whom  the  Select  Com- 
mittee summoned  before  them.  It  is  opposed  to  the  whole 
drift  and  scope  of  the  Committee's  Report. 

And  how  do  the  Committee  meet  the  difficulty  ?  By 
boldly  suppressing  the  preposition  "  in"  before  the  words 
"  our  said  City  of  New  York;"  substituting  thereby,  as  the 
governing  word,  the  verb  "  to  inhabit  and  by  reciting  this 
clause,  thus  mutilated,  and  so  changed  in  sense  as,  by  a  forced 
construction,  to  suit  their  foregone  conclusions  ;  and  then  re- 
porting this  inaccurate  clause  as  the  true  recital  from  the 
Charter,  of  the  qualifications  of  the  Corporators  ! 

The  quotation  of  the  Select  Committee  reads,  persons  "in- 
habiting and  to  inhabit  our  said  City  of  New  York."* 

The  writer  feels  pitiful,  in  following  the  Select  Committee, 
to  detect  these  inaccuracies.  But  as  the  task  of  detecting  is 
a  sorry  employment,  so  the  duty  of  exposing  the  Committee  is 
a  sad,  but  imperative  obligation. 

All  that  the  writer  chooses  to  trust  himself  to  say,  by  way 
of  denouncing  this  false  quotation,  is,  that  the  absence  of  that 
word  is  a  remarkable  accident,  or  a  culpable  neglect  in  those 
persons  who  have,  in  this  Report,  stigmatized  the  Comptroller 
of  Trinity  Church,  and  who  have  accused  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  from  the  year  1813  till  1857,  with  a  "  course" 
of  conduct  consistent  only  "with  deliberate  and  premeditated 
fraud  |M    Physician,  heal  thyself ! 

The  writer  has  thus  endeavored  to  show  what  has  been 
omitted  and  what  suppressed  in  the  second  paragraph  of  that 
portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  which  treats 
of  the  history  of  the  Incorporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

III.  Let  us  pass  on,  next,  to  the  third  paragraph  of  the 
same  narration.    The  Report  states  as  follows  : 

*  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  14. 


/ 


15 


"  The  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  1704,  confirms 
the  essential  powers  of  the  Corporation  by  the  same  title, 
adding  the  words  1  and  their  successors/  " 

The  Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  in  reciting  the  above 
act  of  1704,  conveys  the  idea  that  such  an  act  exists,  "  con- 
firming" and  "adding"  certain  things  ;  and  these  things  are, 
Rector  and  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  their 
successors.  But  why  did  not  the  Committee  state  the  fact 
that  the  act  of  1704  is  repealed  ?  Why  attempt  to  uphold 
those  Episcopalians  who  do  not  belong  to  the  Corporation  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  their  pretension  to  be  Corporators,  by 
naming  the  extinct  act  of  1704  ?  The  reason,  on  the  face  of 
the  Report  is  too  plain  to  be  hidden.  It  is  evidently  because 
the  act  of  1704  "  confirms  the  title  "  The  Rector  and  inhabit- 
ants of  the  City  of  New  York,  "  and  because  the  said  act " 
adds  the  words  "  and  their  successors." 

It  is  curious  to  detect  the  littleness  of  the  artifice  of  all 
this.  If  the  Act  of  1704  were  in  being,  then  the  words  in  the 
Corporate  title  of  Trinity  Church  in  that  act,  to  wit,  "  Rector 
"  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  and  their  succes- 
"  sors"  would  give  color  to  the  claim  that  the  present  genera- 
tion of  "  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  communion 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  are  vested  with  the 
rights  of  Corporators  of  Trinity  Church. 

A  popular  notion  of  "  franchises,"  "  rights,"  u  privileges," 
"  vested  interests,"  &c,  might  thereby  be  fostered  in  the  minds 
of  "  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of  New  York," 
who  under  the  delusive  belief  that  they  were  "excluded," 
"deprived,"  "divested,"  and  wronged  by  Trinity  Church, 
would  join  in  an  assault  upon  Trinity  Church,  and  would 
unite  in  procuring  a  repeal  of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of 
1814.  Besides,  it  is  an  easy  thing  to  persuade  the  cupidity 
of  men  that  they  have  rights  in  property.  And  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  rouse  them  to  anger,  if  you  can  only  inject  the  fancy 
that  somebody  is  withholding  from  them  ,  their  just  rights. 
For  no  other  reason,  that  the  writer  can  imagine,  do  the  Select 
Committee  adduce  "  the  Act  of  1704,"  and  recite  its  peculiar 
title  ;  omitting,  the  while,  to  state  the  fact  that  no  such  act 
has  any  being  and  force. 


16 


It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  supply  the  neglect  of 
the  Select  Committee,  by  citing  the  clause  in  the  Act  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York,  "  passed  17th  April, 
1784/'  wherein  the  Act  of  1704  was  annulled,  as  contrary  to 
the  new  order  of  things  brought  about  by  the  Revolution,  and 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

u  In  order  to  remove  all  doubts  which  may  arise  in  the 
K  minds  of  any  persons,  with  respect  to  the  continuance,  force, 
"  and  effect  of  a  certain  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State 
"  while  a  Colony,  .  .  .  passed  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of 
"  June,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  aod  four,  entitled,  '  An 
"  Act  for  granting  sundry  privileges  and  powers  to  the  Rector 
"  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  of  the  Communion 
"  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  Law  established  ;  Be  it 
"  therefore  further  enacted,  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that 
"  the  said  Act '  (with  others  enumerated  by  their  respective 
"  titles)  is  1  hereby  declared  to  be  fully  and  absolutely  abro- 
"  gated,  abolished,  annulled,  repealed  and  made  void,  as  in- 
"  consistent  tvith  and  repugnant  to,  the  Constitution  of  this 
"  State.'"* 

And  notwithstanding  the  Select  Committee  adduce  this 
very  Act  of  1784,  in  a  following  paragraph  in  their  Report, 
yet  they  avoid  noticing  the  above  quoted  words  (so  strong  and 
so  thorough  that  one  would  suppose  they  could  not  fail  to 
attract  attention),  and  the  Select  Committee  venture  to  allege 
the  abrogated  Act  of  1704,  suggesting  its  peculiar  title,  as 
though  that  Act  of  1704  were  still  potential  !  To  state  this 
conduct  of  the  Select  Committee  is  sufficient  for  all  honest 
readers  to  condemn  it. 

IY.  The  Select  Committee  conclude  their  sketch  of  the 
history  of  the  incorporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  these  words  : 
"  The  Legislature  of  New  York,  in  1784,  confirmed  all  the 
original  powers  of  the  Corporation  without  altering  the  Cor- 
porate name,  which,  however,  in  1788,  was  altered  so  as  to 
substitute  the  1  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of 
New  York '  for  the  1  Protestant  Church  of  England/  And 
no  further  legislative  action  took  effect  until  the  year  1814."f 


*  Act  of  1181.     ■  f  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  14. 


17 


The  writer  would  further  add,  that  this  Act  of  1784,  with 
the  consent  of  Trinity  Church,  enlarged  the  constituency  of 
the  Corporation  by  admitting  pewholders,  and  all  persons  oc- 
cupying sittings,  who  regularly  contributed  to  the  support  of 
the  said  Church:  and  such  others  as  should,  in  said  Church, 
partake  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  statedly, 
being  inhabitants  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,  and 
professing  themselves  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Act  of  1814,  declaratory  of  the  former  Acts  touching 
the  Charter  of  Trinity  Church,  so  far  regulates  the  constitu- 
ent members  of  the  Corporation,  as  to  conform  with  the  "  Gen- 
eral Statute  "  (under  which  all  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the 
State  of  New  York  are  governed),  by  the  provision  "  That 
all  male  persons  of  full  age,  who,  for  the  space  of  one  year 
preceding  any  election  shall  have  been  members  of  the  congre- 
gation," &c.,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  annual  elections, 
for  the  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  the  said  Corpora- 
tion.0 

The  difference  in  the  constituency  of  the  parish  by  the 
Act  of  1784  and  the  Act  of  1814,  consists  in  substituting 
"  all  male  persons  of  full  age  "  for  "  all  persons  ;  "  and  in  re- 
quiring voters  to  have  been  members  of  the  congregation  for 
the  space  of  one  year.  These  persons,  with  the  regular  and 
stated  communicants  in  the  parish,  constitute  the  members  of 
the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

V.  Following  the  Select  Committee's  Keport,  it  becomes 
proper,  at  this  stage  of  our  discussion,  to  inquire  as  briefly  as 
possible  into  the  history,  and  to  state  the  recorded  facts,  re- 
specting the  Act  of  the  Legislature,  entitled  "  An  Act  to  al- 
ter the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  in  New 
York,  and  for  other  purposes,"  "  passed  January  25,  1814." 

The  above-named  Act  was  passed  on  the  petition  of  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  their  corporate  title  o£  "the 
Kector  and  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  commu- 
nion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New 
York." 

The  petition  of  the  Vestry  shows,  1.  That  the  Corpora- 

*  Compare  the  Act  of  1781  with  Act  of  1814. 

2 


18 


tion  had  been  a  body  corporate  by  virtue  of  their  Charter  of 
1G97.  # 

2.  That  the  Charter  contemplated  Trinity  Church  as  the 
sole  and  only  Parish  Church  in  the  City  of  New  York ;  and 
that  it  continued  so  to  be  until  the  Revolution,  and  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  afterwards. 

3.  That  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  in  1784  enlarged  the 
number  of  Corporators  (as  noticed  already)  in  the  provision 
for  admitting  persons  holding  pews  and  sittings,  &c. 

4.  That  since  the  passing  of  said  Act  of  1784,  the  pew- 
holders,  and  the  regular  communicants  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
the  Chapel,  have  been  admitted  to  vote  at  elections. 

5.  That  furthermore,  since  the  year  1784,  owing  to  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the  churchmen  in  the 
city  have  formed  themselves  into  distinct  Corporations,  each 
having  its  peculiar  endowments  and  place  of  worship,  with 
Eectors  and  other  officers  of  their  own  choice,  independent  of 
Trinity  Church,  and  free  from  all  control  and  interference  of 
Trinity  Church. 

6.  That,  to  all  those  Churches,  whether  formed  with  or 
without  the  concurrence  of  Trinity  Church,  she  had  made 
liberal  donations,  at  the  same  time  disclaiming  any  right  or 
disposition  to  intermeddle  with  their  internal  concerns,  and 
denying  Jhem  any  right  to  vote  in  the  elections,  or  to  regulate 
the  affairs,  of  Trinity  Church. 

7.  That,  nevertheless,  a  few  individuals  belonging  to  such 
separate  Corporations,  tendered  themselves  at  the  Annual  Elec- 
tion of  the  year  1812,  and  pretended  to  claim  a  right  to  vote 
for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  ;  that 
their  votes  were  rejected,  and  no  measures  had  been  taken  by 
the  rejected  persons  to  establish  the  right  so  claimed. 

.  8.  That  such  attempts  cannot  fail  to  produce  strife,  and  to 
foster  pretensions  both  unreasonable  and  mischievous. 

9.*  That  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  and  being  especially 
convinced  that,  since  the  formation  of  many  distinct  Churches, 
the  corporate  name  of  Trinity  Church,  to  wit,  "  The  Rector 
and  inhabitants,"  &c,  has  become  inapplicable,  and  ought  to 
be  changed ;  that  all  doubts  respecting  the  persons  entitled 


19 


to  vote  for  Church  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Church,  ought  |8  be  finally  obviated  and  settled. 

10.  That,  furthermore,  the  law  requiring  certain  religious 
corporations  to  exhibit  an  inventory  of  their  estates,  is  at- 
tended with  trouble  and  expense,  and  being  once  exhibited  it 
would  be  useless  to  exhibit  it  again,  unless  the  Corporation 
should  have  acquired  further  estates. 

11.  Therefore  the  petitioners  pray  that  the  honorable  Le- 
gislature "will  pass  an  Act  for  altering  the  name  of  their  in- 
"  corporation  ;  and  also  to  obviate  and  settle  the  questions 
"  that  might  arise  in  consequence  of  incorporating  other  Epis- 
copal congregations  in  the  City  of  New  York;  and  to  do 
"away  the  necessity  of  such  inventory  and  account  being  ex- 
"  hibited  more  than  once,  unless  upon  the  acquisition  of  addi- 
"  tional  property  by  religious  corporations." 

Such  is  a  fair  and  true  abstract  of  the  petition  of  Trinity 
Church  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York,  setting 
forth  the  reasons  for  the  same,  and  containing  all  the  motives 
and  persuasions  which  Trinity  Church  thought  fit  to  urge  upon 
the  Legislature  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1814. 

This  document  was  before  the  Select  Committee  of  the 
Senate  in  1857.  And  yet  that  Committee,  in  their  Report, 
now  before  us,  scarcely  allude  to  this  petition  of  Trinity 
Church  ;  which,  the  reader  will  observe,  is  dignified  in  its 
utterance,  clear  in  its  statements,  and  cogent  in  its  conclu- 
sions. But  the  Select  Committee,  blind  [to  this  authentic 
document,  sets  forth  an  entirely  different  paper — a  paper  not 
addressed  to  the  Legislature,  not  written  until  after  the  Le- 
gislature had  passed  the  act  of  1814  in  both  Houses,  not 
emanating  from  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  not  even 
suggested  by  Trinity  Church  or  its  friends,  but  (as  the  paper 
states  on  its  face)  suggested  by  another  party  ;  a  paper,  the 
responsibility  for  which  is  assumed  by  him  ivho  signed  it — by 
him  only  ;  and  not  capable,  one  would  think,  of  being  tor- 
tured into  an  authoritative  "pledge,"  "promise/'  or  "'repre- 
sentation," from  either  its  writer  or  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons ;  being  entitled  "  Remarks,  &c,"  and  consisting  of  argu- 
ments, and  signed  by  "  Robt.  Troup,"  under  date  of  6  Sept., 
1813,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 


20 


This  private  paper,  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate 
have  the  hardihood  to  quote,  as  emanating  from  the  Vestry 
of  Trinity  Church,  and  containing  "  representations/'  "  prom- 
ises/' and  "  pledges,"  which  Trinity  Church  has  falsified  and 
violated,  and  as  setting  forth  the  "  inducements  "  to  the  Legis- 
lature to  pass  this  act  of  1814.* 

And  on  the  conclusions  drawn  from  their  own  reasoning 
on  these  false  premises,,  the  Select  Committee  charge  upon  the 
Wardens  and  the  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church  in  1813-14, 
and  upon  the  members  of  the  Corporation  since  that  time, 
dishonesty  and  meanness,  and  (if  they  had  dared)  "  fraud,"  in 
procuring  the  act  of  1814  under  false  pretenses.  But  let  us 
recite  the  Select  Committee's  words ;  and  afterwards  the 
writer  will  proceed  to  substantiate  his  accusations  against  the 
Committee's  statements,  arguments,  and  conclusions. 

"  Your  Committee  do  not  charge  that,  in  obtaining  the 
"law  of  1814  under  the  representations  employed  for  that 
"  purpose,  the  Corporation  were  guilty  of  deliberate  and  pre- 
u  meditated  fraud,  in  setting  forth  inducements  which  they 
"  never  intended  to  realize.  But  thus  much  your  Committee 
"  feel  bound  to  say,  that  if  there  had  been  any  such  fraudulent 
"  intention  to  obtain  power  under  that  law,  in  order  to  defeat 
"  the  very  ends  which  it  proposed  to  secure,  your  Committee 
"  cannot  see  that  it  would  have  been  necessaiy  for  the  Cor- 
"  poration,  in  that  case,  to  alter  in  any  respect  that  which  has 
c*  been  their  actual  course,  in  order  to  carry  out  such  fraudulent 
"  intention  with  entire  success."f 

These  insinuations  are  serious  charges  against  honorable 
men.  Emanating  from  the  high  station  of  Senators  of  New 
York,  these  imputations  acquire  a  force  to  crush  those  upon 
whom  they  fall,  unless  those  intended  victims  were  sus- 
tained in  the  strength  of  compact  integrity.  But  if  the 
charges  be  false,  no  station  is  high  enough  to  protect  the 
authors  of  the  slander  from  a  rebounding  stroke  winch  shall 
hurl  them  amongst  the  ignoble  herd  of  detractors  and  false 
accusers  of  their  fellow-citizens. 

The  gentlemen  against  whom  the  accusations  of  the  Select 

*  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  p.  16,  &c. 
]  Sen.  Doc.  No.  46,  Keport  of  Scl.  Com.  p.  26, 


21 


Committee  are  aimed,  are  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
especially  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry,  in  1813,  who  were 
appointed  to  apply  to  the  Legislature.  That  Committee  was 
composed  of  Richard  Harrison,  David  M.  Clarkson,  Thomas 
Barrow,  Robert  Troup,  Jacob  Le  Roy,  Peter  Augustus  Jay, 
and  Thomas  L.  Ogden.  These  are  names  of  gentlemen  whom 
the  breath  of  slander  has  never  sullied  in  their  lifetime  ;  and 
it  shall  be  the  writer's  pious  tribute  to  their  honored  memory, 
to  protect  those  names  from  slander,  now  that  they  are  dead. 

It  has  been  shown  to  the  reader  that  the  reasons  of  the 
Vestry  for  applying  to  the  Legislature  for  the  act  of  1814, 
were  set  forth  in  their  "  petition  ; M  and  that  the  Select  Com- 
mittee do  not  ground  their  charges  against  the  Vestry  on  that 
petition.  And  furthermore,  the  "  petition  "  of  Trinity  Church 
is  the  only  extant  authoritative  document  from  which  the 
Select  Committee  might  derive  matter  on  which  to  base  any 
charges  against  the  Vestry  in  the  premises. 

Accordingly,  the  Select  Committee  resort  to  the  pamphlet 
of  Robert  Troup,  before  mentioned ;  where  we  follow  on  upon 
the  traces  of  their  specious  reasoning. 

The  Select  Committee  affirm  that  Ci  as  an  inducement  to 
the  Legislature  to  pass  this  act  of  1814,  Col.  Tronp,  who 
appears  to  have  acted  throughout  as  the  authorized  agent  of 
Trinity  Church  in  procuring  its  passage,  declared  before  the 
Council  of  Revision,  c  J udging  from  the  past,  it  is  morally 
certain/  &c. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  in  proof  before  the  Select 
Committee,  that  Col.  Troup's  pamphlet,  from  which  the  Select 
Committee  make  the  quotations,  was  not  written  until  after 
the  act  of  1814  had  passed  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature. 

We  say  that  the  evidence  of  this  fact  was  before  the  Select 
Committee,  in  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  witnesses  whom 
they  had  summoned. 

The  Hon.  L.  Bradish,  in  his  8th  answer,  says,  '''From  the 
journals  of  the  Legislature  and  the  Council  of  Revision,  which 
I  have  examined,  it  appears  that  the  petition  of  Trinity 
Church,  for  the  act  of  1814,  was  presented  in  the  Senate  of 
the  State  on  the  17th  March,  1813,  a  bill  brought  in,  which 


22 


was  passed  by  that  body  on  the  25th  March,  1813,  and  by  the 
Assembly  on  the  2d  of  April,  1813." 

In  the  "  11th  Answer"  of  the  Hon.  L.  Bradish,  he  alludes  to 
and  quotes  from  the  same  Pamphlet  of  "  Robert  Troup," 
giving  its  date,  of  "  6th  of  September,  1813." 

Notwithstanding  this  evidence  before  the  Select  Committee 
they  do  not  scruple  to  allege  an  argument,  uttered  in  Septem- 
ber, as  proof  of  "  an  inducement  to  the  Legislature"  to  pass 
an  Act  in  the  months  of  March  and  April  preceding  I 

According  to  the  logic  of  the  Select  Committee,  the  induce- 
ment for  the  Act  of  the  two  Houses  began  to  exist  five  or  six 
months  after  the  two  Houses  had  passed  the  Act ! 

And,  furthermore,  the  Pamphlet  of  Judge  Troup  is  itself 
a  confutation  of  the  allegation  of  the  Select  Committee,  both 
in  the  Title  and  in  the  first  sentence.  The  title  of  the 
Pamphlet  is  "  Remarks  on  the  Bill,  entitled,  An  Act  to  alter 
the  name  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  and  for  other 
purposes."  And  the  first  sentence  of  the  Pamphlet  is  this  : 
"  The  Bill  was  popular  in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature, 
and  it  passed  by  large  mcgorities." 

If  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  did  really  examine 
the  document  from  which  they  quote,  sentence  after  sentence, 
in  their  Report,  a  more  glaring  and  scandalous  misstatement 
could  not  confound  them.  And  yet  the  falsehood  runs  through- 
out this  Report,  wherein  the  Remarks  of  Judge  Troup,  uttered 
after  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1814,  are  alleged  as  ex  post 
facto  u  inducements"  to  said  Act. 

In  pity  and  in  charity  the  writer  has  sought  to  find  an  ex- 
planation in  behalf  of  the  Select  Committee. 

And  the  first  hypothesis  that  occurs  is  this  :  that  the 
Select  Committee  did  not  write  their  Report  ;  it  was  com- 
posed for  them,  perhaps,  by  many  journeymen  hands  ;  and 
hence  the  incompatibilities,  inconsistencies,  and  sophistries 
manifest  on  its  pages.  But  secondly,  The  Select  Committee 
have  signed  the  Report,  and  thereby  have  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibility for  its  statements  and  its  issues.  Therefore,  the 
plausible  idea  occurs,  that  the  Select  Committee  did  not  mean 
to  have  the  reader  understand  the  term  "  the  Legislature,"  to 
signify  the  "  two  Houses  of  Senate  and  Assembly,"  because 


<23 

(as  the  State  Constitution  then  stood)  a  "  Council  of  Revi- 
sion "  existed  to  supervise  the  Acts  which  had  passed  both 
Houses,  with  qualified  power  to  veto  such  of  said  Acts  as  the 
majority  of  the  Council  disapproved.  Therefore,  inasmuch  as 
Judge  Troup's  pamphlet  was  addressed  to  "the  Council  of 
Revision/'  and  "  the  Council  of  Revision  M  was  a  quasi  part  of 
the  "  Legislature,"  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  u  Legislature  " 
were  "  induced M  to  pass  the  Act  of  1814  through  Judge 
Troup's  persuasive  reasoning  before  "  the  Council  of  Revision." 
But  this  plea  for  the  Special  Committee  will  hardly  serve, 
because  the  Council  of  Revision  happened  (as  Hon.  L.  Bradish 
testifies  in  his  8th  Answer  before  the  Select  Committee)  to  be 
u  equally  divided.  No  order  was  made  thereon,  and  the  bill 
became  a  law  by  lapse  of  time,  without  ever  having  received 
the  express  sanction  of  the  executive  department  of  the 
Government."^ 

Accordingly,  it  appears  that  after  all,  only  the  two  Houses 
of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  are  the  "  Legislature  "  who  passed 
upon  the  Act  of  1814,  induced  thereto  by  Judge  Troup's 
pamphlet,  ivhich  icas  not  then  ivritten  ! " 

But,  furthermore,  this  plea  for  the  Select  Committee  is 
confuted  out  of  their  own  mouths  :  for  the  Select  Committee 
say  in  their  Report,  that  "  Under  these  inducements"  (refer- 
ring to  a  passage  by  them  quoted  from  Judge  Troup's  pam- 
phlet immediately  jireced  in  g)  "the  bill  passed  BOTiiHousES."f 
To  casuists  more  adroit  than  honest,  the  writer  must  leave 
the  Statement  of  the  Select  Committee's  Report  to  find  a 
plea  to  justify  or  even  to  extenuate  such  absurdities  and 
untruths. 

The  writer  calls  the  reader's  notice  next  to  the  reasoning 
of  the  Select  Committee,  by  which,  with  a  sort  of  feline 
stealthiness,  they  approach  their  conclusion  of  a  "  fraud." 

The  Statement  of  the  Select  Committee  now  under  review, 
firstly  affirms,  that  "  Col.  Troup  appears  to  have  acted 
throughout  as  the  authorized  agent  of  Trinity  Church,  in  pro- 
curing the  passage"{  of  the  Law  of  1814. 

This  very  guarded  and  qualified  statement  of  Col.  Troup's 

*  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  95,  and  L.  Bradish's  Testimony,    f  Sen.  Doc.  Xo.  46,  p.  7. 
\  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  16,  17, 


24 

u  authorized  agency,"  is  soon  magnified  into  an  unquestionable 
"  authorized  "  agency,  but  so  quietly  and  cunningly  as  almost 
to  escape  observation.  In  the  next  reference  to  Col.  Troup's 
pamphlet,  as  quoted  by  the  Select  Committee,  "  Col.  Troup  " 
disappears,  and  his  place  is  supplied  by  a  neuter  pronoun. 
"  It  ivas  urged,  as  '  morally  certain/  that  the  Corporators, 
"  &c."*  "  The  frequent  execution  of  this  power,"  it  was 
"represented"  "would  break  down"  the  estate  of  Trinity 
"  Church."f  These  quotations  are  cited  from  Col.  Troup's 
pamphlet. 

Then,  further  on,  a  page  or  two  in  the  Select  Committee's 
Keport,  the  "  neuter  pronoun "  is  made  to  give  place  to  the 
Vestry  (while  "  Col.  Troup  "  is  introduced  in  a  parenthesis,  as 
a  subordinate).  "  The  increase  of  population  in  the  City  of 
New  York,  it  was  urged  by  the  Vestry,  through  Col.  Troup," 
made  it  c:  morally  certain  "  that  Trinity  would,J  &c.  Again 
"  The  new  policy  of  Trinity  Corporation  has  therefore  disap- 
pointed the  authoritative  representation  of  Col.  Troup."§ 

Then,  in  the  very  next  paragraph,  "Col.  Troup"  is  dis- 
missed, to  appear  on  the  stage  no  more,  and  Trinity  Church 
is  put  in  the  forefront,  as  making  "pledges."  "  The  Evi- 
"  dence,"  say  the  Select  Committee,  "  shows  that  another  evil 
"  has  arisen  out  of  this  failure  on  the  part  of  Trinity  Church 
u  to  fulfil  the  pledges  under  which  she  obtained  the  law  of 
"  1814."|| 

The  reader,  who  has  followed  the  artful  statements  of  the 
Keport  of  the  Select  Committee,  will  now  discern  the  method 
by  which  the  Committee  has  contrived  to  insinuate  the  charge 
of  "  fraud  "  on  Trinity  Church,  in  procuring  the  enactment  of 
the  law  of  1814. 

But  the  writer  craves  the  reader's  patience  and  asks  him 
to  restrain  his  expression  of  indignation  until  he  further 
acquaints  him  with  the  utter  contradiction  of  the  statement 
that  Judge  Troup  has  spoken  in  his  Pamphlet  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

In  the  first  paragraph  of  Judge  Troup's  Pamphlet,  he 
says,  "  Two  members  of  that  Honorable  Body  (meaning  the 


•  Sen.  \le\x  40,  p.  18.  f  lb.  p.  18.  J  Sen.  Doc.  46,  p.  20. 

§  Sen.  Doc.  4C,  p.  21.  Ib.  p.  22. 


25 


Council  of  Revision)  were  pleased  to  express  a  desire  that  the 
subscriber  would  furnish  them  with  his  reasons  in  support  of 
the  BiU." 

But  let  us  cite  the  whole  paragraph,  even  at  the  cost  of 
tautology. 

"  The  Bill  was  popular  in  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature, 
and  it  passed  by  large  majorities.  Certain  objections  were, 
notwithstanding,  reported  against  it  in  the  Council  of  Revi- 
sion ;  and  these  remain  to  be  acted  upon  at  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Council.  Two  members  of  that  Honorable  Body  were 
pleased  to  express  a  desire  that  the  subscriber  would  furnish 
them  with  his  reasons  in  support  of  the  bill  ;  and  in  compli- 
ance with  this  desire,  the  following  remarks  are  most  respect- 
fully submitted."  * 

With  this  authoritative  statement  of  Judge  Troup  himself 
before  their  eyes,  the  writer,  or  any  other  honest  man,  finds  it 
impossible  to  pardon  the  Select  Committee  for  their  attempt 
to  identify  "Trinity  Church"  with  "Judge  Troup,"  and  to 
make  his  private  opinions  and  pious  hopes,  their  "  promises  " 
and  u  pledges." 

And  the  writer  therefore  publishes  it  to  the  Church  and 
to  the  world  that  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the 
State  of  New  York  in  1857,  passing  over  the  published  Peti- 
tion of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  in  which  Petition  and 
in  that  only,  they  authoritatively  allege  the  reasons  for  the  Law 
o/1814,  have,  in  their  Report,  set  forth  the  private  reasons 
of  an  advocate  in  the  character  of  pledges  authorized  by  a  Cor- 
poration :  and  thereby,  without  any  cause,  they  have  held  up 
the  Vestry  of  Trinity  before  the  Senate  as  responsible  for  opin- 
ions which  they  never  expressed,  and  for  promises  which  they 
never  made,  and  for  inducements  which  they  did  not  suggest, 
and  pledges  which  they  never  offered.  And  this  iniquity  of 
the  Special  Committee  is  conceived  and  born  in  the  design  to 
represent  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church  as  obtaining  the 
Law  of  1814  under  false  pretences,  insinuating  the  odious  im- 
putation of  "  fraud "  upon  the  memories  of  the  dead,  and 

*  Remarks  on  Trinity  Church  Bill  before  the  Council  of  Revision,  by  Robert 
Troup,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Church,  p.  1. 


26 

upon  the  character  of  the  living  gentlemen,  who  have  com- 
posed the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  since  the  year  1813. 

VI.  The  writer  furthermore  arraigns  the  Report  of  the 
Select  Committee  before  the  bar  of  public  opinion  in  the  mer- 
cantile world. 

The  Report,  before  it  attempts  the  positive  charge  of  a 
"  course"  of  fraudulent  conduct  on  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church, 
prepares  the  reader  for  said  charge  by  a  financial  statement. 

Trinity  Church,  in  her  Report  of  1855  to  the  Legislature, 
in  answrer  to  their  demands,  presented  an  estimate  of  her  es- 
tate derived  from  the  value  of  her  lots  as  appraised  by  the 
sworn  Assessors  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  from  the  value 
of  the  houses  belonging  to  her  tenants,  as  appraised  by  her 
own  agents. 

These  agents  were  carpenters  and  masons,  not  Episcopa- 
lians, except  one  of  them,  nor  in  any  way  under  the  influence 
of  Trinity  Church.  Furthermore,  the  Vestry  employed  a 
public  Consulting  Actuary  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  Rever- 
sions, in  order  to  reach  "  the  present  value  "  of  her  Estate. 

The  results  of  these  appraisals  and  calculations,  the  Vestry 
reported  to  the  Legislature  in  obedience  to  their  requisition. 
The  Special  Committee  to  whom  the  Report  of  Trinity 
Church  was  referred,  have  chosen  to  dispute  the  accuracy  of 
these  Estimates  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church.  In  doing 
so,  the  Special  Committee  include  Bonds  given  to  Trinity 
Church  by  the  churches  whom  Trinity  has  endowed,  notwith- 
standing these  bonds  are  never  enforced.  They  have  also  reck- 
oned into  the  account  the  interest  on  these  bonds,  although 
the  interest  is  never  demanded,  nor  entered  into  her  accounts. 
They  have  ignored  the  declaration  of  the  Vestry,  that  "  these 
bonds  on  the  Churches  are  demanded  in  order  to  insure  them, 
perpetually  to  be  used  for  the  sacred  purposes  to  which  the 
Churches  are  consecrated."  But  because,  in  the  event  of  any 
attempt  to  alienate  those  Churches,  Trinity  may  demand  the 
repayment  of  the  principal  and  interest  of  the  bonds,  the 
Select  Committee  have  chosen  to  reckon  them  as  part  of  the 
assets  of  the  Corporation  of  Trinity. 

The  Select  Committee  have  included,  also,  an  interest  of 
Trinity  Church  in  St.  John's  Park  ;  which  the  Vestry  has 


27 


refused  to  sell,  except  for  an  exorbitant  price,  set  upon  it  in 
order  to  discourage  the  attempt  to  bay  it.  In  this  way  the 
Select  Committee  has  reported  the  estate  of  Trinity  Church 
to  be  "five  times  the  amount,"  which  the  Report  of  1855 
estimated  the  estate.  The  object  of  the  Select  Committee,  in 
this  exaggerated  calculation,  was,  plainly,  to  convict  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church  of  falsehood,  in  underrating  their 
property.  Now,  the  point  to  which  the  writer  would  ask  the 
attention  of  the  honorable  mercantile  community  is  this*. 
The  calculation  of  the  Select  Committee,  on  page  12  of  their 
Keport,  in  Sen.  Doc,  No.  46,  produces  an  aggregate  sum  of — 

$7,092,544  76 

Deduct  on  account 
of  Leases  yet  to  run  as 
estimated  in  the  Report 
itself  (say  the  Select 
Committee),  $1,222,338  29 

Debt  (of  the  Cor- 
poration of  Trinity 
Church),  648,913  00 

$1,871,251  29 


Net  total  present  value,  $5,221,293  47 

The  Committee  exclaim  :  "  More  than  five  times  the  net 
total  given  in  the  Keport." 

The  merchant  will  notice,  however,  that  the  sum  to  "  de- 
duct on  account  of  leases  yet  to  run  "  (with  seeming  but  most 
delusive  candor),  is  "estimated"  according  to  the  estimate  of 
Trinity  Church  in  their  "report"  o/ 1855. 5 

But  this  very  estimate  in  the  Report  of  1855  is  accused  of 
being  only  one-fifth  of  the  true  sum,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Se- 
lect Committee. 

Notwithstanding,  the  Select  Committee,  in  spite  of  their 
condemnation,  adopt  this  very  diminished  estimate  of  "  the 
value  of  the  leases  yet  to  run,"  on  the  low  percentage  which 
they  themselves  condemn.  The  purpose  is  patent.  It  is  to 
increase,  by  this  means,  the  sum  total  of  the  estate  of  Trinity 


28 


Church  so  as  to  deceive  the  Senate  and  the  community  with 
the  flourish  of  "more  than  five  times  the  net  value  given  in 
the  Report."  It  is  to  prove  their  false  charge  by  false  figures. 

The  writer  has  taken  the  trouble  to  resort  to  an  accountant 
and  consulting  actuary  to  ascertain,  approximately,  the 
amount  of  the  false  estimate  of  the  Select  Committee.  And 
he  finds  it  to  reach  the  sum  of  §1,468,116  36,  or  nearly  one 
and  a  half  million  of  dollars  t9 

*  The  value  of  the  lots,  after  deducting  the  estimated  value 

of  the  buildings,  was,  by  the  Report  $2,668,710 

The  value  of  the  same,  as  reported  by  the  Senate  Committee,  is  5,874,023 


Increase  $3,205,313 

But  the  above  lots  are  subject  to  certain  leases,  expiring  at  different  periods, 
and  consequently  the  present  value  of  the  lots  is  reduced  by  calculating  the 
reversion  of  the  above  leases,  to  $1,446,371  71,  and  raising  the  value  of  the  lots, 
the  deduction  thus  made  for  running  leases  must  likewise  be  increased  in  the 
same  proportion. 

Assuming  that  the  advance  in  the  above  valuation,  by  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee, had  been  made  by  a  uniform  percentage  (which  may  not  be  the  case),  the 
value  of  the  tenant  interest  would  be  raised  by  the  same  percentage  to 
$2,690,454  65. 

This  result  is  probably  as  near  to  the  actual  value  as  can  be  reached,  with- 
out going  into  a  new  and  laborious  calculation  of  each  lot,  and  of  each  lease, 
by  themselves.  The  accurate  computation  of  each  separate  reversion  might 
and  would,  no  doubt,  produce  a  different  sum,  but  it  could  not  be  of  any  im- 
portance, and  probably  not  vary  over  five  per  cent,  one  way  or  the  other. 

J.  F.  ENTZ, 
Accountant  and  Consulting  Actuary. 

NeiT  York  Life  Ins.  and  Trust  Co. 
February  9th,  1857. 

Furthermore :  Deducting  from  the  Select  Committee's  sum  total,  the  items 
which  the  Committee  seem  to  be  conscious  are  wrongfully  introduced  by  them 
(in  order  to  swell  the  difference  between  the  aggregate  of  their  own  estimate 
and  the  estimate  of  the  Vestry),  to  wit:— 

St.  John's  Park   $400,000  00 

Church  bonds  and  mortgages,  with  in- 
terest to  Jan.  1,  1857. 

The  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  Select 
Committee,  is  

Add  the  Committee's  mistake  in  their  es- 
timate of  "the  present  value,"  as  shown 
above  by  the  calculations  of  Mr.  Eutz  

Produces  an  over  estimate  of  the  Select 
Committee,  by  their  own  shoiring,  of  a  total 

of.  )  $2,440,079  25 


571,052  89 
-  $971,952  89 

$1,468,116  36 


29 


Surely,  this  is  an  unfortunate  exposure  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittte  of  the  Honorable  Senate  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
who  are  miserably  striving  to  convict  Trinity  Church  of  finan- 
cial errors  !  Again  we  apply  to  this  Select  Committee  this 
sacred  proverb,  in  all  seriousness,  "  physician,  heal  thyself  I" 

There  is  but  one  more  point  to  which  the  writer  would  call 
attention.  It  touches  the  witnesses  "  whom  the  Select  Com- 
mittee relied  on  in  framing  their  Report  to  the  question,  1  How 
many  free  Churches  are  there  in  New  York  V  "  Not  one  of  the 
witnesses  mentioned  Trinity  Church,  the  noblest  Free 
Church  of  all. 

In  view  of  the  examination  which  the  writer  has  been  at 
pains  to  undertake,  he  would  conclude  with  a  sigh  at  the  evi- 
dence, which  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  unfolds,  of 
the  infirmity  of  sinful  men,  in  their  attempts  to  deceive  them- 
selves. But  there  is  another  feeling,  also  clamoring  to  be 
heard  and  expanded.  It  is  the  feeling  of  indignation  against 
the  Select  Committee  and  their  advisers  ;  it  is  the  sentiment 
of  generous  sympathy  with  Trinity  Church  ;  it  is  the  uprising 
of  outraged  humanity,  aroused  to  the  conviction  that  its  cre- 
dulity has  been  abused,  and  its  confidence  in  Senators  impair- 
ed, and  its  trust  in  brethren  betrayed. 

While,  therefore,  the  writer  (with  the  Select  Committee) 
condemns  the  former  policy  (now  revoked)  of  the  Vestry  of 
Trinity  Church  (as  evinced  in  the  leases  of  pews  in  Trinity 
Chapel),  in  the  attempt  to  prevent  the  enlargement  of  her 
constituent  corporators — while  he  advises  the  widest  admission 
of  all,  who  are  duly  qualified,  into  the  Corporation  ;  and  while 
he  would  cultivate  and  cherish  intimate  relationships  of  broth- 
erhood with  all  fellow-churchmen  :  he  would,  at  the  same  time, 
repel  the  brethren  of  other  corporations  from  intermeddling  with 
the  corporate  elections  of  Trinity  Church,  earnestly  advocating 
the  stability  of  the  law,  and  pleading  with  the  Legislature  of 
New  York  to  listen  to  no  such  representations  as  are  set  forth 
in  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee.  Let  it  be  by  public 
justice  ordained,  that  the  Law  of  1814  shall  stand  ;  for  the 
honor  of  the  State  ;  for  the  peace  of  the  Church ;  for  the 
good  of  posterity  ;  and  to  the  confusion  of  misguided  zealots 
and  covetous  men. 


30 


The  writer  would  now  draw  together  the  threads  of  his 
examination  and  exposure  of  the  Select  Committee's  Report, 
by  recapitulation.  He  indicts  and  denounces  the  Keport  of 
the  Select  Committee,  as  false  and  deluding,  on  these  several 
counts  : 

1.  It  states  only  that  "the  site"  of  Trinity  Church  at  the 
head  of  Wall  street,  is  a  vested  and  consecrated  property, 
omitting  to  include  the  grave-yard  and  cemetery  adjoining. 

2.  It  omits  to  recite  certain  clauses  of  the  Charter  of  1697, 
necessary  to  the  question  touching  the  "  admission "  of  Cor- 
porators into  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church. 

3.  It  suppresses  an  important  word  in  the  clause  of  the 
Charter  of  1697,  which  it  professes  to  quote  verbatim. 

4.  It  reasons  inconclusively  from  its  falsified  premises. 

5.  It  has  adduced  an  act  of  the  Colonial  Legislature,  as 
being  potential,  which  is  abrogated  and  annulled  as  unconsti- 
tutional. 

6.  It  has  appealed  to  prejudices  and  to  covetousness,  hold- 
ing forth  expectations  to  the  inhabitants  of  New  York,  which 
have  no  good  foundation. 

7.  It  has  neglected  to  state  the  true  grounds  on  which 
Trinity  Church  applied  for  the  Law  of  1814. 

8.  It  has  substituted  the  arguments  of  an  advocate,  in  the 
place  of  the  reasons  of  the  Corporation. 

9.  It  has  held  up  these  arguments,  so  substituted,  as  in- 
ducements to  the  two  Houses  of  the  Legislature  to  pass  the 
Law  of  1814. 

10.  It  has  alleged  those  arguments  as  "  inducements  "  to 
the  said  law,  though  the  law  was  passed  by  the  two  Houses  of 
the  Legislature,  months  before  the  arguments  were  penned 
and  published. 

11.  It  has,  on  these  fallacious  representations,  insinuated 
the  odious  charge  of  fraudulent  conduct  in  the  Vestries  of 
Trinity  Church,  since  1813. 

12.  It  has  falsified  figures  in  its  own  representation  of  the 
Estate  of  Trinity  Church,  by  its  method  of  estimating  the 
"  present  value  "  of  said  estate. 


31 


13.  It  has  committed  all  these  wrongs  on  Trinity  Church, 
on  the  Honorable  Senate,  on  the  Community,  on  Justice, 
Truth,  and  Ilonor — knowingly,  and  wilfully,  and  shamefully. 
I  have  the  duty  of  subscribing  myself, 
A  Member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 


i£x  IGibrts 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book.'' 



Avf-ry  Architectural  and  Fine  arts  Library 

(in  i  01  Si  ynkm'k  B.  I)i  rsi  Old  York  Lihrary 


